Standing Committee G

[Mr. Eric Forth in the Chair]

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
On resuming—

Clause 79 - powers of entry: supplementary

Question proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
Question again proposed.

Nigel Evans: I cannot with any honesty say that I remember with clarity what I was saying before we were so rudely interrupted at 11.25 am.

Alun Michael: May I assist the hon. Gentleman—it is not meant entirely as a threat—in that I can remember exactly what he was saying?

Nigel Evans: I sought guidance and wondered whether Hansard was readily available so that I could seamlessly carry on, but I am told that we may have to wait a day or two. I am not going to ask you, Mr. Forth, to suspend this sitting while we wait, so I shall press on with what I think I was last up to, which is to ask the Minister why,
''so far as is reasonably practicable'', 
is mentioned in the Bill at clause 79(5)(b). I agree with clause 79(6), which states that 
''the officer is not required by virtue of subsection (5)(b) to re-set the alarm'', 
because alarms are different. It is reasonable not to expect officers to be able to do that. 
Subsection (7) states: 
 ''Any expenses reasonably incurred by the local authority in connection with entering the premises, silencing the alarm and complying with subsection (5) may be recovered by the authority from the responsible person''. 
In certain circumstances, the authorities will be protected if they enter the premises and cannot reasonably turn off the alarm. They might not have the key or the code that is needed to turn it off, so they might cut the electricity to the alarm or, indeed, smash the alarm off the wall. If they were to do that, I assume that they would be protected in that the owner of the alarm would not then be able to come back and say, ''Hold on, you've caused damage to my alarm: it cost  £500 to replace and I want that money from you''. I assume that clause 79(7) is designed to give them protection. 
If the authorities have abused their power in either entering or not properly securing the premises, which they are duty bound to do under subsection (5)(b), I assume that the owner would be able to go to court if he was unhappy that the authorities had not complied with the provisions in the Bill.

Alun Michael: Hon. Members have shown great imagination in discussing the clause and considering a number of circumstances that might arise. Those who drafted the clause have covered all the circumstances that have been raised. The clause describes what authorised officers of local authorities may do to silence an alarm further to their entry on to premises pursuant to clauses 77 or 78.
The clause makes it clear that the authorised officers may have other people with them and I was asked who they might be. One example might be an electrician or an expert in dealing with alarms who might, for instance, be able to find a simpler and less dramatic way of dealing with an alarm than tearing it from the wall in the way described by the hon. Gentleman. It might involve a carpenter who might be able to effect entry through a door in a tidy way that would keep damage to a minimum while ensuring that the work of silencing the alarm could go ahead. It might be a locksmith, who might be able to gain entry without physically damaging the premises at all.

Anne McIntosh: Would it be possible to have a list on Report? Will the Minister comment on the fact that not only alarms but smoke bombs, which could completely disorientate the person entering the premises, are increasingly used as deterrents to intruders? A situation may be envisaged in which such devices could disorientate the expert entering the premises to deactivate the alarm.

Alun Michael: I think you, Mr. Forth, would direct me fairly quickly were I to start to deal with issues other than audible intruder alarms, which is the precise problem that we are dealing with in this part of the Bill. A list would not be appropriate because of how the technology changes with varying circumstances and the type of development to which the hon. Lady referred. That might be dealt with in other legislation. It might be that officers of the local authority need different types of support in their work and it would not be appropriate to include in the Bill something that might either be left to the discretion of local authorities or, if there is a need for it, dealt with simply in guidance that indicates what a local authority ought to consider in deciding who does the work.
Clause 79 also allows local authorities to reclaim reasonable expenses arising in connection with entry to premises and provides protection from liability for  the authority and its officers for anything that is done in good faith. That is sensible; officers need to be protected so that they can do the work that the clauses allow in a reasonable way and without placing themselves at risk by doing so. Subsection (6) makes it clear that the officer is not required to re-set the alarm, and subsection (5)(b) states that the officer must 
''leave the premises (so far as is reasonably practicable) as effectively secured against entry as he found them.'' 
Were those words not in the Bill, it would require the officer to leave the premises precisely as well defended as they were before he entered, which may not be possible, given that he has had to enter forcibly. That is what the clause is about. 
To put it the other way round, the clauses ensures that officers are not required to do what is unreasonable or impracticable. It is simple, straightforward and logical. By and large the words take the ordinary English meaning, which local authorities and the courts are used to applying. It gives a detailed indication of what can and cannot be done and provides practical arrangements for dealing with extreme situations, which I hope will be unusual because of the power in the clause. If those who create or commit a nuisance know that if they do not sort it out themselves their premises may be broken into in the public interest, the use of the clause may be extremely unusual or, indeed, exceptional. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 80 - Orders and regulations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I understand that the clause extends the power exercisable by statutory instrument to supplement earlier provisions. I listened carefully to the Minister, who said that certain issues that have arisen under this part of the Bill may be dealt with in other legislation. What opportunity will there be for scrutiny of that legislation?

Alun Michael: No, I was saying was that some of the issues that the hon. Lady raised may be dealt with elsewhere because they are not appropriate for this part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: With the greatest respect to the Minister, subsection (1) states:
 ''This section applies to a power conferred on the appropriate person under any provision of this Chapter to make an order or regulations.'' 
It is therefore important that we should be clear about the extent of those regulations. We should also be clear about concerns such as who any ''other persons'' should be. 
Some of the new technologies used will defeat the purpose of entering premises either with or without the use of force. For example, the effects of a smoke bomb might negate any efforts to go in, and set off other  alarms. I wanted to place on the record that it is extremely important for both Houses of Parliament to consider how the power under clause 80 will be deemed to be exercisable by any subsequent statutory instrument.

Alun Michael: Very simply, the clause is straightforward and relates to the powers described in the earlier clauses. It is clearly appropriate for the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to be able to make different provisions for different types of authority if there is evidence that that is necessary. That merely gives the power for flexibility in any orders and regulations that are required. The statutory instrument containing an order or regulations is subject to the processes of this House in the normal way. I am rather surprised that the hon. Lady has managed to find anything to raise on this clause. It seems perfectly straightforward, and I hope that we can agree that it stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 81 - Interpretation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: On a small point of clarification, will the Secretary of State be involved here or will there be opportunities for the local authorities to act under, for example, the provisions of clause 69? Will the Secretary of State be involved on each occasion or will the individual councils retain a degree of autonomy? Is there any change to the role of the Secretary of State in this regard?

Alun Michael: I am not sure that I understand the question. There is no change to the role of the Secretary of State. The clause simply defines the terms used. The phrase ''appropriate person'' is used because under the devolution settlement the powers are exercised in relation to local authorities in Wales by the National Assembly for Wales rather than the Secretary of State. In the past, the legislation would have simply referred to the Secretary of State and it would have been the appropriate Secretary of State, whether for Wales or for a Department relating to English local authorities. The phraseology is very common. It does not change anything. It is normal use. The clause is only about interpretation. It does not change the powers of any individual or body, be they Secretary of State or local authority.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 82 - Noise offences: fixed penalty notices

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: This part relates to noise from premises. Will the exceptions under the Noise Act 1996 remain in place? I understand that there are some quite sizeable exceptions, whether that is noises from all workplaces and all neighbourhood noises. Most of the offending businesses relate to transport such as airports, harbours and railway stations, particularly those that operate at night and those involving freight. Is there scope to look at reducing the exceptions and extending the provisions of the Bill?

Alun Michael: May I assist the hon. Lady? She may be reading too much into the clause. It simply writes into section 8 of the Noise Act 1996 the type of ability to vary the fixed penalty that we have dealt with on quite a number of occasions. There are no hidden agendas here. The clause is quite straightforward.

Eric Forth: Order. The Minister has redirected us in terms of the specific provisions of this clause, which refers to fixed penalty notices. Therefore, I ask the hon. Lady to move on.

Anne McIntosh: That is most helpful clarification. Under subsection (2)(b) of new section 8A, the amount of the fixed penalty is to be fixed and specified at £100. Why is the amount £100 in this case, when under clause 74, the penalty was fixed at £75?

Alun Michael: May I assist the hon. Lady? We have dealt with this sort of question on numerous occasions. During consultation we sought to identify, from the practical experience of those involved, the level at which people would be likely to pay the fine—not so low that people are likely to disregard it, and not so high that people are more likely to go to court. The penalty is currently £100, so the provision makes no change except inserting the capacity of local authorities to vary the amount up or down, within reason, for purposes that I have set out on a number of occasions in relation to other clauses in which fixed penalty notices are relevant.

Eric Forth: Order. I know that the Minister is trying to be helpful, but he should bear it in mind that lengthy interventions may not necessarily be a substitute for his reply to a clause stand part debate.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister has made a similar point on other occasions, but we have never addressed the charging of £100 in this case, and it would be helpful to know his thinking behind it. I know from the summary responses to his consultation on the Bill that there was substantial evidence that one reason why  fixed penalty notices issued under the Noise Act 1996 were not working was that people felt that the system was bureaucratic and time-consuming, and that for the amount of money involved, there was little reward for local authorities to pursue the matter. Therefore, why has he come up with the figures of £100 and £75 respectively?
I am familiar with the arguments in favour of variable charging, but I want to know whether the Minister is seeking to go down that path. To remind him, this is the first opportunity we have had to ask such questions because we have not discussed this clause before, and I would like a substantive answer. Given the categorical list of extensive responses that he received to the consultation, it is incumbent on him to address these points.

Alun Michael: First, £100 is the current figure. Given that some bodies felt that £100 remains an appropriate figure, whereas others, as the hon. Lady said, thought that there should be variation, £100 seemed to be the right starting point. There was no massive amount of evidence that the level should differ from the existing level, but this provision provides flexibility for local authorities that feel that it would make a difference to be able to implement that variation.
It is also worth saying that only comparatively recently have local authorities been allowed to retain the income from fixed penalties. That provision was contained in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which I think has been in operation for only about a year. That has gone some way towards local authorities benefiting from the income where fixed penalties are applied. This measure gives them greater flexibility on the level and on ways of encouraging people to pay, for the reasons that I have enunciated on previous clauses. I hope that the Committee agrees that this clause should stand part of the Bill. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 84 - Extension of Noise Act 1996 tolicensed premises etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I seek clarification of the term ''licensed premises''. Can the Minister give a proper definition, perhaps for the purposes of the clause and schedule 1, so that we can be clear about the exact scope of the Bill and the clause?

Sue Doughty: I am interested in how the clause will work. When I read it initially, I assumed that it related to noise coming from licensed premises, but certainly in the past week, when the public and politicians have been having quite a wide debate about the extension of licensing hours, one thing that people have remarked on heavily is that  there is noise not only from the pub itself but from the comings and goings, the chatter of people leaving, the shouting in the street and the other activities associated with licensed premises. There is noise in the environment of licensed premises as well as in the licensed premises. Will the Minister explain what he means by an extension to licensed premises? Does that include noise from associated activity as well as in the premises themselves?

Alun Michael: The clause applies to licensed premises rather than to wider issues in the street; it is not intended to deal with that. We should remember that this is an environmental Bill primarily, dealing with noise. The clause is intended to give local authorities new powers to tackle the night noise problem from licensed premises. It provides local authorities with powers to take action when the noise from licensed premises at night is causing annoyance to those in the vicinity but the problem is not severe enough to warrant serving a 24-hour closure order under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. That will make it easier to tackle antisocial behaviour in a proportionate way, and responds to a number of concerns about the impact of licensing hours in terms of noise. A local authority will be able to serve a notice on a pub or club requiring it to reduce noise levels. If it does not comply, an offence is committed.
Clause 84 gives effect to schedule 1, which amends the Noise Act 1996 to extend local authority powers to take action against night noise under the Act to cover licensed premises. The powers of local authorities under the Noise Act are currently restricted to night noise from dwellings. That is the principal difference. This measure provides for an appropriate and proportionate response where there was perhaps a gap in the powers available to local authorities. 
The offence of causing noise beyond the specified level after due warning has been given is applied to the ''responsible person'', who is the person in charge of the premises when the offence is committed. The permitted level of noise for licensed premises will be determined—work is taking place on this—in time for the implementation of this provision. With those words of explanation, I hope that we can agree that clause 84 will stand part of the Bill. 
Miss McIntosh rose—

Eric Forth: Order. I have allowed the Minister to give that explanation, but our debate on the narrow clause 84 is turning into a debate on schedule 1, which I do not want to happen at this point, although the Minister has very helpfully set the stage for it. If the hon. Lady intends to get us into schedule 1, I ask her to wait just a moment, by which time I suspect that we shall be on to schedule 1. Is that helpful?

Anne McIntosh: Could I beg your indulgence, Mr. Forth, and ask whether the point that I was intending to raise is best made at that stage or at this stage? It concerns the relationship between clause 84 and section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003.

Eric Forth: I suspect that that matter would be better raised in the debate on schedule 1.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 - Application of the Noise Act 1996 to licensed premises etc.

Question proposed, That this schedule be the First schedule to the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to have the opportunity to have a short debate on schedule 1, which is rather long. The Minister will be aware that chapter 11 of the guidance issued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 provides details of extended police powers
''to close down instantly individual licensed premises that are disorderly, likely to become disorderly or are causing nuisance as a result of noise from the premises.'' 
I understand that schedule 1 sets out additional, new measures, which set the Bill on a collision course with the 2003 Act. Could the Minister put my mind at rest that a so-called double jeopardy situation in laws for pubs or other businesses in the hospitality sector will not arise? The officials from his Department may not be as well versed in the implications of chapter 11 of the guidance to section 182 of the 2003 Act as their counterparts in the other Department. I would find it helpful to have a letter of explanation on that point.

Alun Michael: I assure the hon. Lady that my officials are fully aware of that chapter and probably sleep with copies of it under their pillows at night, such is the seamless nature of government.
I am quite clear that there is no conflict between the Bill and the 1993 Act. As I said in relation to the previous clause about a gap being filled, local authorities always have to choose the most suitable instrument for dealing with a particular set of circumstances. It is sensible that they should be able to make a graded and appropriate response. In some circumstances, powers that allow them to close down premises may be just what is needed and may be greeted with applause from neighbouring residents; in other circumstances, the powers that are provided are much more proportionate. It is sensible for local authorities not to be put in a position where they must use a large stick, when a small stick would do. 
I assure the hon. Lady that the question of overlap was discussed between the officials of different Departments, and that we do not see a problem in that regard.

Anne McIntosh: That is all very nice, but those discussions are, by definition and by their very nature, private. I imagine that the guidelines for the 1993 Act  were set out by regulation, and that similar guidelines will be published to give effect to schedule 1, and the whole of this part of the Bill.

Alun Michael: May I explain to the hon. Lady, in case she is not aware of it, that when regulations are devised, there is a good deal of discussion between policy officials, lawyers and, where appropriate, Ministers? Regulations are drafted by parliamentary counsel. A great deal is done to ensure that there is no conflict between the regulations that relate to different pieces of legislation. Those discussions take place within and between Departments; they do not take place simply in the silos of one Department.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister seems to be being particularly obtuse, and perhaps missing the point. We have been contacted by at least one organisation—the British Beer and Pub Association, in which I suppose I should declare an interest, because I go into pubs and occasionally drink beer. I should not like to say that I had no connection whatever with beer or pubs.
It is of particular concern to all the interest bodies, who have not just discussed their representations with the official Opposition, to know that they will be included at the level of drafting the regulations and setting out the guidelines. It is right and proper that individual Members of Parliament represent those interest groups, especially as we know that the deregulation of the licensing laws will affect pubs and clubs. In the market town of Thirsk, in my constituency, there is a noise problem because the pizza parlours stay open until quite late. At present, nothing can be done until the licence runs out. The only remedy is to object when the licence is up for renewal and tell the local authority that the conditions of the licence are not being respected. 
As a non-practising Scottish advocate I welcome the fact that lawyers are involved. It is always wise for Departments to involve lawyers and parliamentary counsel.

Alun Michael: There is always extensive consultation on regulations. There is an opportunity for interest bodies to comment, and individual Members of Parliament—whether or not they are connected with the beer industry—can make their points. There is also the formality of consideration through the statutory instrument procedure. I do not understand the hon. Lady's point. She told us the name of the organisation that prompted her remarks, but she has not taken us much further.

Anne McIntosh: I do not wish to be exhaustive, as you might call me sharply to order, Mr. Forth. We had substantial responses on the matter before the Bill was published, and the summary of responses to the Department's consultation shows that there is deep unease about the extent to which the noise abatement  proposals will be applied. It could be extremely controversial and lead to long delays in addressing complaints. Paragraph 5 of schedule 1 refers to a temporary event notice. There are instances where if there is a delay because of consultation or noise abatement procedure, it may well be that such a temporary event could not take place because of the period of time involved. There is a lot of meat in the schedule that the Minister is leaving to the Secretaries of State in the two Departments.
Paragraph 11 on page 83 gives the amount of the fixed penalty as £500 in the case of an offence under section 4A—an offence where noise from other premises exceeds the permitted level after service of notice. There are thus three different amounts. It would be helpful to know how the figure of £500 was reached. The Minister said that schedule 1 was entirely proportionate; I would argue that it could be entirely disproportionate in respect of applications for temporary events. 
Clause 84 and schedule 1 extend the Noise Act 1996 from private premises to licensed premises and, with the other licensing deregulation provisions in the Licensing Act 2003, the Government are making substantial changes. We are leaving an awful lot to the Secretaries of State of both Departments. That is causing severe concern to a number of outside bodies; I have mentioned only one such body, but I assure the Minister and the Committee that there are substantially more.

Alun Michael: The hon. Lady refers to responses to consultation, thus making my point that there has been extensive consultation, so I am not sure how that can be a point of difference between us. The responses to the consultation were, of course, taken into account in drafting both the clauses and the schedule.
The hon. Lady asked how the level of £500 was reached, and commented that three levels of fine appear in the Bill. I should think that the answer to that point is blindingly obvious: we are dealing with three different offences, and the level of penalty that is appropriate and that will work is different in each case. The level of £500 was set in the way in which I have described: it is thought to be low enough to be paid with the minimum of bureaucracy while having some impact on the offenders who cause the nuisance in local areas, and not so high as to make it likely that offenders will fail to pay thus meaning that prosecution, and all the bureaucracy that comes with it, will have to follow. None of that should surprise the hon. Lady. 
The hon. Lady's comment about temporary event notices in subsection (6)(b), to be inserted into the Noise Act 1996 by paragraph 4(5) of the schedule, surprised me because it would be rather odd if we had not made allowances for temporary events. Clearly, the main target of the measure is those premises where there are continuing problems, but situations also arise as a result of short-term events, and they need to be allowed for in the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for the Minister's comments. He will know of a proposal, which I think is very good, that was in the list of responses to his consultation paper. It proposed that community service orders might, in certain conditions, be an appropriate penalty in lieu of fixed penalty notices under the Noise Act. Will he consider that in the guidelines?

Alun Michael: It would not be appropriate to consider them in the guidelines or regulations because there is no need for detailed regulation; what you see is what you get. The schedule is full and deals with everything except the permitted noise levels, on which work continues. We are consulting the organisations that have concerns on both sides of the equation: those that will be affected by the levels of noise, and those that manage premises and therefore have to consider what is reasonable and practical.
To consider a whole raft of alternative forms of punishment certainly goes wide of what we could do in considering the schedule. When it is the responsibility of the individual in charge of premises at the time, I cannot see that a community service order would be the appropriate order for those circumstances.

Anne McIntosh: That is helpful as far as it goes. Concerns have also been raised about noisy vehicles, music from moving vehicles, fireworks and barking dogs, and there is particular concern about bonfire night. Could bonfire night, for example, fall under a temporary notice applied for under the terms of clause 84 and schedule 1?

Alun Michael: I cannot see how it could. The hon. Lady really has lost me on this occasion.

Eric Forth: Order. The hon. Lady is losing me, too. Unless she is able to persuade me very quickly that bonfires have suddenly made an appearance in the Bill, I suggest that we move on.

Anne McIntosh: Bonfires might not appear in the Bill at the moment, but we might look at that at a later stage. As regards the Minister's argument that schedule 1 and clause 84 are proportionate, we beg to differ.
Question put and agreed to. 
Schedule 1 agreed to. 
Clause 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 86 - Deferral of duty to serve abatement notice

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I seek clarification on new subsection (2C). The general thrust of the clause is to enable local authorities to defer serving an abatement notice for seven days after it has concluded that a noise constitutes a statutory nuisance. The Government believe that that short deferral will help local authorities resolve disputed cases without imposing significant delays. Will the Minister elucidate how, under new subsection (2C), the authority must demonstrate that it is satisfied
''before the end of the relevant period that the steps taken will not be successful'' 
''that the nuisance continues to exist''? 
What would the test be? 
New subsection (2D) states: 
 ''The relevant period is the period of seven days starting with the day on which the authority was first satisfied that the nuisance existed''. 
That seems reasonable enough, but how would that apply to a temporary, one-off application, which might be time-barred and made at reasonably short notice?

Alun Michael: This provision arises from a request by local authorities. The intention is to allow them to take alternative steps to resolve noise nuisance problems in cases where they think it appropriate to do so. At present, if a local authority concludes that a statutory nuisance exists, it has no option but to serve an abatement notice; it cannot do other things, such as holding discussions or exploring alternatives, that might lead to a resolution without the serving of a notice.
In some circumstances, serving an abatement notice can make matters worse and make arguments more difficult to resolve. In such cases, local authorities will be able to defer issuing an abatement notice for seven days to try to resolve the problem by further discussion. There is no requirement on the authority to  pursue this alternative route; delaying for the seven days is not an obligation or a right in respect of those on whom a notice may be served; it simply gives the authority more flexibility. 
An abatement notice must still be served if the nuisance is not abated within or after the seven-day period. I hope that that provides the clarification that the hon. Lady seeks. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 87 - The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment

Anne McIntosh: We come now to the quango that the Government set up comparatively recently. The thrust of clause 87 is to change of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. The commission is currently classified as an executive non-departmental public body and was incorporated as a limited company in August 1999. Its predecessor was the Royal Fine Art Commission, although it has a broader remit. The central aim when it was set up was to promote high-quality design and architecture and to raise the quality of building.
The establishment of the commission as a company was an interim measure and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport gave a commitment that it would seek to give the commission a statutory basis as soon as a legislative opportunity arose. That has taken six years although, as the Minister will know, a previous attempt was made in the Culture and Recreation Bill, but it failed to complete its passage in 2001 because of the general election. Let us hope that this does not happen to this Bill. 
 The commission is currently funded by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the DCMS. As it is not clear on the face of the Bill, could the Minister confirm that the funding arrangements will be changed? The initial proposal is to alter the status and to provide a statutory power to the Secretary of State to fund those activities. Why have the Government again seen fit to do this at such a comparatively late stage in a Parliament? Was the commission criticised as being too close to certain developers who clearly would have had a vested interest? If so, does the Minister agree with that criticism? 
The Law Society of England urges the rejection of the whole of part 8 of the Bill. It opposes the establishment of CABE on a statutory basis. It was, as I said, originally established as a non-departmental body, but it has now assumed a voice in the planning system that is beyond its original remit. It insists on imposing its views on certain development proposals.  Placing the commission on a statutory basis would serve only to reinforce its interventions in development control. The Law Society believes that design issues are often matters of subjective personal taste and should not be dictated. 
Could the Minister respond to our concerns and tell us what the legal implications of altering the status—

Eric Forth: Order. I have been generous to the hon. Lady so far but she is now straying, as I thought she might, into clause 88. We are on the narrow subject matter of clause 87, which is the establishment of the commission. I would rather she kept the line of argument that she is now beginning to pursue to clause 88.

Anne McIntosh: May I seek your advice, Mr. Forth? Should the question of whether the commission should continue to have charity status be reserved for clause 94?

Eric Forth: I suggest that the clause 94 would be the more appropriate place. This clause is simply a paving clause for the more detailed consideration of functions, financing, staffing and so on that will be considered later.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for that advice, Mr. Forth. Setting the context purely as clause 87, it would be helpful to know from the Minister why he is seeking, against such powerful representation as we have heard from an organisation as widely respected as the Law Society, to change the basis of CABE, and what the implications of that change will be.

Matthew Green: I rise to ask the Minister to confirm the reasoning behind giving CABE a statutory basis. I understand that it will improve its audit requirements, and we would all welcome anything that improves audit requirements. I would like him to explain whether there will be any changes beyond that, because my initial reading was, I have to say, along the lines of that of the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). It was only on further reflection that I realised that the Bill would not change anything that CABE currently does, such as advice on the planning system. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the change is for audit requirements, in which case I am sure that the Committee can speed on through this clause, which would be very welcome.

Alun Michael: I am very happy to respond to the contribution from the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), who has correctly understood what the clauses are about. His intervention was precise, so I am very happy to give him that assurance.
I was very interested in the remarks from the hon. Lady at the start of her questions, when she seemed to say that Conservative Members are now swinging  behind the Bill and intending to support it. This massive U-turn, after her unreasoned attempt to derail it on Second Reading, is most welcome. We have had some developments after the excellent discussions in Committee, on which I will be happy to reflect. 
The provision will change only the status of CABE; it will not change its functions or purpose. CABE exists to be the champion in England for high-quality buildings, places and spaces, but it will, as the hon. Member for Ludlow said, improve accountability because the Comptroller and Auditor General will be able to take over the audit of CABE. 
CABE was set up in 1999 as a company limited by guarantee, as the hon. Lady said, under the Companies Act. It was an interim measure, and that was made clear at the time. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport gave a commitment at that time that it would seek to give CABE a statutory basis when a legislative opportunity arose, so as ever we are keeping a promise. 
The hon. Member for Ludlow asked how the provision would bring about greater accountability. The Comptroller and Auditor General is responsible to Parliament, and therefore having him as the auditor is the right way forward. It will be consistent with a general undertaking that the Government gave in response to the Sharman report—that in future, to improve public accountability, all executive, non-departmental public bodies should be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. We are keeping a promise; it makes sense; and it is the only way to bring CABE within his ambit. So it is very difficult to see how we could possibly do other than what is set out in the clause. 
It is appropriate to include that measure in a Bill that is about improving the quality of the environment through the promotion of the very best in architecture, urban design and public spaces generally. That is very much what CABE is about. It achieved a great deal in its first five years, so putting it on to a statutory basis is a strong sign of the Government's confidence in its abilities and its future, as well as the wish, as the hon. Gentleman said, to see it properly accountable and properly audited. 
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
On resuming—

Alun Michael: I conclude my comments on the impact of the changes by saying that there is no intention for the funding arrangements of the body to be changed, and there is no intention to create a different type of organisation. CABE will remain a small and lean strategic body, and there are no plans to expand it or change its role.

David Drew: Now that I have had time to think of a question, I am sure that I  can get it right. I am seeking reassurance about the potential impact of the new CABE on English Heritage. They are parallel, almost sister, bodies, and I would like an assurance that the clause will in no way damage the effectiveness of English Heritage, which has its own statutory responsibilities.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for proving beyond doubt the existence of sentient life on the Government Back Benches of this Committee. I admire the way he has risen to the casual challenge offered to him as we left the Room for the Division.
I assure the hon. Member for Ludlow that the clause will not change the relationship between CABE and English Heritage because it will not change CABE's functions; it will merely bring it within the ambit of statutory authority and under the audit functions of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I underline that point because I suspect that there would be many theoretical questions on the other clauses relating to CABE were I not to give that absolute clarification that nothing would change except those specific alterations. I will not comment on the working of CABE itself since that will not change under the Bill. 
The Law Society's attitude to the change of the statutory requirement seems odd, but I would not necessarily look to the Law Society for expertise on this matter. CABE has not assumed an unintended role in the planning system; it is fulfilling the Government's original intention that it should be the champion of good design and architecture in England. Its opinions and advice on schemes will remain non-binding so, I repeat, nothing changes. If that phrase is becoming boring, I hope that it will at least have got the point across clearly. 
CABE does not insist, as was suggested by the Law Society, on imposing views on development proposals. Developers can submit their plans to CABE before planning permission, but there is no obligation to do so. However, it is easier to adapt plans and make use of CABE's expertise at that stage, rather than after a planning application has been made and comments have been passed. At all stages, CABE's opinions and advice remain non-binding, and developers and local authorities are free to follow it or not. CABE provides expertise and advice that is extremely useful to the whole process. I hope that I have said enough to convince hon. Members that this and perhaps other clauses can be agreed to. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Ordered, 
 That the Order of the Committee [18th January] be amended, in paragraph (1)(e), by leaving out '9.25 am' and inserting '8.55 am'—[Mr. Ainger.]

Schedule 2 - Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Second schedule to the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: The schedule relates to a number of elements of CABE, including status, membership, tenure and other sundry items. The Minister said that he was responding to a promise made, but taking six years to keep a promise is not exactly a good record of time-keeping.
I understand that the commission currently enjoys charitable status. If that is the case, I ask the Minister whether that charitable status will continue.

Alun Michael: CABE does not have charitable status, so that status cannot continue.

Anne McIntosh: That is most helpful. I understand that CABE is a non-departmental body, but it will become a departmental body. That will obviously have significance for the independence and impartiality of the advice given.

Alun Michael: I assure her that the change will not have that significance. Independence of advice is a requirement that is placed on the body as a departmental public body. As I said, things do not change as a result of the provisions of the Bill, except those things that change explicitly.

Anne McIntosh: I am sorry, but to me that change is an explicit one. I want to place that on the record. If the commission remained a non-departmental body, there would be greater clarity that the advice is impartial and independent. I believe that the status of CABE will be weakened if that changes. As it is a departmental body, I seek an assurance that service as a member of the commission is not service in the civil service of the Crown, which is stipulated in paragraph 1(3) and paragraph 4(2) of schedule 2.

Alun Michael: I point out to the hon. Lady paragraph 1 of schedule 2, which answers her question.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister might think that it answers my question. I was seeking clarification. The body is sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I presume that the Minister will say that nothing has changed except what has changed, but will he confirm that the body will continue to be jointly funded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister? It begs the question—[Interruption.]

Eric Forth: Order. I ask hon. Members to observe the niceties of the Committee.

Anne McIntosh: It gives rise to the question of why a Bill from a different Department is sponsoring this part of the Bill.
Tenure is limited to four years and committees may sit. In paragraph 5, the Bill says that 
 ''The Commission may establish one or more committees.'' 
It is normal to set a specific maximum number of committees that can be set up. The Bill is silent on that.  Clearly, paragraph 6 will have cost implications from the point of view of remuneration. Will the Minister state that remuneration is on the same basis as if it were a straightforward transfer? 
Paragraph 10, on the provision of an annual report, states that 
 ''The Commission must send to the Secretary of State a report on the discharge of its functions during each financial year.'' 
The schedule is silent as to whether that report will be published and, therefore, debatable by Select Committees in either this House or the other place. We are informed by the House of Commons research paper on the Bill that the Bill will not place any duty on the commission to publish an annual report. In our view, that raises issues of accountability. The Minister will be mindful that severe reservations were raised about accountability that were not dissimilar to those raised by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). I would like to return to the point about English Heritage at the appropriate time, but given that the Select Committee was quite critical in that regard, is the Minister minded to publish the annual report and allow it to be debated? The records produced under paragraph 12 will presumably be accessible. How will members of the public or developers with an interest have access to those records? 
On the transitional provisions, will the Minister satisfy my interest? I understand that the chairman of the commission had resigned, and I wonder whether there is a chairman and whether the transitional provisions will have implications in the future when a commission chairman resigns. Those are the main points that we would like to raise.

Alun Michael: Most of the questions asked by the hon. Lady have been answered already when I said that those things do not change. Our intention was to keep the promise that was made to bring CABE into the auditing scope of the Comptroller and Auditor General and to put that on a statutory basis, and no more. We could debate a lot of theoretical issues for a long time, but the legislation does not change them in any way.
May I make it clear that CABE will remain a non-departmental public body on a statutory basis? Secondly, it is not normal to set a limit on the number of committees that can be established by such a body, not least because that depends on the functions of the body. It may be an organisation that does not need to have committees or sub-committees of any sort. It may be a body with a variety of engagement with expert opinion. My guess is that that is very much part of the warp and weft of CABE's work. CABE looks at the built environment and has done some excellent work on urban parks and such things, and would want to engage the advice of a variety of people and experts. 
There will be a duty to publish an annual report. I can only say that the House of Commons Library research paper is wrong about that. I could wax eloquent on what the organisation does and should do in the future, but none of that has any relevance to the limited purposes of the clauses and schedules.

Anne McIntosh: I am not sure that I am entirely satisfied. I know that the Minister meant to be helpful. The regulatory impact assessment, on which he has told me not to rely, states that the Secretary of State will have a statutory power to fund the activities conducted by CABE. I understood that to mean that the Secretary of State for DEFRA would be responsible.

Alun Michael: No. This is a general point. It does not relate to the Bill. The normal pattern of drafting legislation is to refer to ''the Secretary of State'', which means the appropriate Secretary of State. In previous legislation ''the Secretary of State'' might have referred to the Secretary of State for the Environment, who would deal with issues in England, and the Secretary of State for Wales, who would deal with them in Wales. We cannot use the same phraseology now, as some issues are dealt with by the National Assembly for Wales, but as CABE is an England-only body, we can revert to the simple reference to the Secretary of State.
Should Departments be reorganised, as happens from time to time, the generic reference to the Secretary of State means that it is not necessary to amend primary legislation to ensure that the responsibility transfers between members of the Cabinet. However, the hon. Lady would be wrong to infer that there is an intention to transfer the responsibility from where it currently lies to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. That is not the case. As I have said, the only changes are those that I spelt out at the start of our proceedings.

Anne McIntosh: That is most helpful. It leaves me with one point on the transfer of cost. Paragraph 9 of the schedule refers to accounts. Previously, the accounts were audited by a private auditor at a cost of £15,000 per annum. There will now presumably be a transfer of cost to the public purse, as I understand from the Department's regulatory impact assessment that CABE will be audited by the Comptroller and  Auditor General. I fear that the cost will be more than the modest £15,000. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell me what provision is made in the budget for the accounts to be audited.

Alun Michael: I will simply say that that is a matter for the Secretary of State.

Anne McIntosh: That is extremely disappointing and very unsatisfactory.

Alun Michael: No, it is not unsatisfactory. It is precisely where the responsibility is placed in the Bill. That is the way in which the Government work. It is for the Secretary of State to make sure that a body for which he or she is responsible has the funds to do what it is there to do. If it must do it under legislation, that makes it all the clearer what the Secretary of State must provide, so there we are.

Anne McIntosh: I would just note, in the spirit of freedom of information, that it is extraordinary that we have just been told that the Secretary of State can do what the Secretary of State wants to do and that the House can be left in the dark.

Alun Michael: The hon. Lady seems to be sticking her head into the dark and trying to nuzzle as far down into the subterranean depths as she can. I said that the provision gave the responsibility to the Secretary of State, so of course the Secretary of State must make sure that a body for which he or she is responsible has the appropriate resources. Primary legislation should not set out exactly what audit fees should be allowed for a particular body.

Anne McIntosh: It is a very simple question. Will the audit fees be higher or lower under paragraph 9 of the schedule?

Alun Michael: It is a simple question and it is a simple answer. It is for the Secretary of State to make the appropriate arrangements. These are normal matters of public accountability and audit.

Anne McIntosh: It seems extraordinary that we now have a Freedom of Information Act and we know that in the past the accounts cost a modest £15,000 per annum. There is every indication that under this provision they will cost substantially more.

Alun Michael: That is not necessarily the case. CABE pays for audit now, and it will have to pay for audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The cost will depend on the scope of the audit, as is the case with private auditors. I do not understand why the hon. Lady does not understand that and why she is labouring a point that does not seem to me even to exist.

Anne McIntosh: The record will show that I am simply asking whether, under the new schedule, the cost will be higher or lower.

Alun Michael: I am simply trying to explain to the hon. Lady that the Bill's provisions make the costs neither higher nor lower: they simply change payments to an outside auditor to payments to the Comptroller and Auditor General, which I understood from both sides of the Committee was what was wanted. It is a fulfilment of the undertaking given some time ago.

Eric Forth: Order. I am all for probing Ministers in the appropriate way in appropriate circumstances, but I judge that the sterility of this exchange has now reached unacceptable levels. Will the hon. Lady please move on or come to a conclusion?

Anne McIntosh: I shall conclude that unless the Minister can give firm evidence to the contrary, the costs will be higher rather than lower and we shall return to the matter at a later stage.

Alun Michael: That seems an expression of personal prejudice rather than an attempt to assist the Committee, and I hope that the schedule can now stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to. 
Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 88 - General functions of the commission

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in clause 88, page 68, leave out line 4.
I am almost nervous to continue because of the dancing on pinheads we have just had. Amendment No. 15 seeks clarification from the Minister on what CABE will be charging for—it currently charges for some of its services. As the Minister has said, there will be no change. I assume that it will continue to charge for some of its services, but it might be useful for the Committee to hear which services are charged for.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making clear the probing nature of his amendment. I would have been nervous if it was intended as a serious amendment that might lead to the removal of CABE's authority to make charges in respect of providing facilities, services and advice on architectural or built environment matters. Had the hon. Gentleman pushed it to a vote and put that capacity at risk, it would have been a bad decision.

Nigel Evans: He would not have won.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman should not presume on these matters. CABE is funded primarily to provide advice and services in England, where it will have a duty to discharge its functions and currently provides most of them free of charge. However, it charges for some services; for example, training and publications. That is entirely consistent with the policy  on the selling of Government services, because it enhances the use and value of public assets and exploits their commercial potential. For departmental public bodies such as CABE, such activity can generate valuable additional resources for their core objectives. The provision that is made here is similar to statutory powers granted to other bodies in this sector, for example, English Heritage.
Looking at the activities that take place at the moment, CABE has successfully sold services to a number of bodies—operating income generated in 2003-04 was over £500,000. In surveys, it scores highly for customer satisfaction, so CABE has the potential to generate useful additional resources for itself and for its purposes. CABE will also be able to operate outside England, but will not be funded with that intention. CABE's help has already been sought by devolved administrations in other parts of the United Kingdom and by foreign countries. Unless it can charge, it will either be unable to undertake some work or will have to take work out of the funding provided clearly for the purpose of giving a service in England. 
So I hope that the hon. Member for Ludlow will be encouraged by that explanation and be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

Matthew Green: I am pleased with the Minister's explanation and on the basis that it would be nice to get through every amendment in a couple of minutes in this way, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nigel Evans: I seek clarification because I understand from earlier contributions that this commission will be carrying out the same functions as the old commission. I have no problems with that whatever.

Alun Michael: Well spotted.

Nigel Evans: Stroke of genius, really. Clause 88(2) states:
 ''The Commission must discharge its functions in relation to England and may also discharge them in relation to any other place it thinks appropriate.'' 
I assume that that is similar to the original Act.

Alun Michael: That is precisely the point that I covered a moment ago in response to the hon. Member for Ludlow. In explaining why CABE is able to charge, I said that it had already been asked for help and advice by countries overseas and by the devolved Administrations. It is not funded for those purposes, but it is important that it is allowed to undertake that work so that its expertise can be made more widely available.

Nigel Evans: I am grateful for that explanation. When I originally saw the word ''England'', I thought that ''other places'' meant other parts of the United Kingdom. Then I started to think more widely and I  thought that the term might mean the British overseas territories and other parts of the world. I am extremely grateful for the Minister's explanation.

Anne McIntosh: I was advised by your good self, Mr. Forth, that this would be the appropriate place to debate CABE's general functions. Clause 88 sets out those functions, as well as defining the built environment and intellectual property, but perhaps the Minister can clarify what specific role CABE will have in planning policy and planning proposals, because there is some debate about that.
The Library note—[Interruption.] If I could continue, the thrust of my argument will become clear. CABE's job has been to improve design, and that has included commenting on major developments at the planning stage. However, the Library note says: 
 ''Approval by CABE may encourage a planning authority to approve an application although of course an application might be rejected on completely different grounds.''

Alun Michael: I am just wondering whether the hon. Lady was out of the Room when I responded on this point a short time ago. As I made clear, CABE can offer advice on planning, and developers can seek advice in advance of a planning application, but any advice that CABE offers is non-binding. It is up to the authorities to deal with the planning application, and it is up to those making the application to prepare it. CABE is merely available as a source of advice on best practice.

Anne McIntosh: I should like to press the Minister further. He did say that, but if the advice is not binding, that raises the question of what role the commission does fulfil. Subsection (3) states:
 ''The Commission may, for any purpose connected with the discharge of its function . . . provide, or assist in the provision of, public works, services and amenities'' 
''take any other steps it thinks appropriate.'' 
Will that have any planning implications? 
The hon. Member for Stroud referred to the complementary role played by English Heritage, and it was quite vociferous in its evidence to the Select Committee in that regard. It noted that the Committee had commented in one of its reports that 
''there are concerns that the functions of CABE and EH overlap and that they are not working closely enough together and providing consistent advice on planning applications . . . In some instances CABE and EH are giving conflicting advice. EH tends to favour conservation while CABE prefers a modernist approach.'' 
It then noted that the Committee had recommended that the position be clarified and that 
''the relationship between CABE and EH needs to be reinforced in order to rationalise their operations, to minimise duplication and to ensure their advice is consistent.''

Matthew Green: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Anne McIntosh: I would be most grateful to hear from the Minister whether clause 88—[Interruption.] I am asked from a sedentary position what that has to do with the Bill. I understand that English Heritage is a statutory body. We are told that there will now be another statutory body, CABE, giving advice, which is not binding, although I think that the advice of  English Heritage is binding. As those points were submitted, I believe, at the time of the consultation, that raises the question whether they were taken into account in the drafting of clause 88.

Matthew Green: I shall briefly speak to the clause, as the hon. Lady would not take an intervention. I struggle to see the difficulty with two bodies, coming from different areas, giving different advice. It is advice; it is not binding. When planning applications are submitted, many people give advice. Even MPs might sometimes say, ''Oh, that's a good scheme; the planning committee should vote for it.'' I therefore struggle to see why two different bodies, which were set up to do two different things, should not give separate advice. It would worry me greatly were CABE and English Heritage giving exactly the same advice, because then people would question why two different bodies existed.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman has given an excellent reply to the debate on the clause. The evidence of the Select Committee was given before publication of the Bill, and was of course taken into account in deciding what should be in the clauses. It was decided that CABE should be established, on the basis that it has existed as a non-statutory body. I do not see a problem. I share the hon. Gentleman's view that it is good to have particular expertise. CABE has expertise on the built environment; English Heritage gives advice on England's heritage. At times, the two may run closely together and support each other; at other times, there may be different perspectives. The fact that people do not have to take a piece of advice does not make it any less important. It is right to have advice from important perspectives, such as that provided by CABE. Like the hon. Gentleman, I do not understand the hon. Lady's difficulties, and I urge the Committee to agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I have nothing further to add other than to commend the Select Committee report, which flagged up the difficulties. It clearly thinks that there is a problem. I am heartened that the Minister believes that the Committee's criticisms were taken into account. We shall return to the Select Committee and see whether we can develop the arguments further at a later stage.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 89 - Changes to functions of the Commission

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I have a simple question for the Minister. In what circumstances does he envisage changes to the commission's functions being necessary? This is the second attempt in the Bill to  change those functions by statute. I understand that there will be a draft order, which I presume means a statutory instrument. Will that be debatable in the House, so that the contents and the changes to the commission's functions are subject to parliamentary scrutiny?

Alun Michael: An order can confer a further function on the commission only if the new function is connected directly or indirectly to an existing or former function of the commission. In other words, it would not be possible to add functions that had nothing to do with the main thrust of CABE's responsibilities. The point of the clause is to provide flexibility should other functions arise that are complementary to the commission's existing or previous functions.
It is difficult to anticipate exactly what the new functions might be, but let me give an example. The commission's role has changed since its inception. It started off promoting high standards in design and management of buildings and structures, and moved on, as I said earlier, to working on the design and management of parks and public spaces. I have seen some of its publications, which are excellent. They consider the improved use of what have sometimes been quite derelict public spaces, and make constructive suggestions. It would have been a pity if that logical extension of the work of the commission had not been possible. In placing it on a statutory basis, we want that flexibility to continue. I understand that allowing that type of development of the commission's work is the intention behind allowing the flexibility in the Bill. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clauses 90 to 92 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Schedule 3 agreed to. 
Clause 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 94 - Architecture and the built environment: financial assistance

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: Clause 94(4) relates to financial assistance and the form in which it may be given. I understand that if an order is made under clause 89 to change the functions of the commission, subsection (4) enables the Secretary of State to make an order amending the purposes for which financial assistance may be given accordingly, to ensure that any changes to the commission's functions need not affect the availability of financial assistance. Will he assure me that it is purely a consequential change, which will have no policy implications?
'''the built environment' includes— 
(a) any structure or area built or designed for human use (such as squares, parks and recreation areas); 
(b) any area available for public use which is in the vicinity of such a structure or within or in the vicinity of such an area''. 
Clause 94(5) relates to that definition. Is that simply repeated? If the ''built environment'' has already been defined once, I am honestly intrigued as to why that definition would be there again. Will the Minister also say a word about what the ramifications of 
''in the vicinity of such an area'' 
under the ''built environment'' would be? 
I am sure that the House Builders Federation has been in contact with the Department and the Minister. It has said that if—its expression, not mine— 
''views of relevant stakeholders could be sought in formulating and presenting to Parliament any proposals of this nature, that would be welcome.'' 
In particular, on clause 94, its asks that there should be ''greater transparency for stakeholders''—those concerned—such as, it points out, the federation itself. It would support the powers being drawn up in the facilitatory way proposed, since this will allow operational flexibility to respond to needs identified, within the rules of public accountability. Can the Minister confirm whether he is minded to accommodate its request for consultation in formulating and presenting proposals to Parliament? In particular, will there be transparency for bodies such as the federation in this regard?

Alun Michael: First, the hon. Lady is right to suggest that the way that clause 94 is drafted is consequential on clause 89. The same definition for ''built environment'' is given. I daresay it could have been possible to draft it as a cross-reference, so that the same words only appeared once. It makes the definition in relation to financial assistance clear. I suppose it would be theoretically possible to change what the body could do without providing additional finances—it would, perhaps, be raised out of the work overseas. In that case, it would not be necessary to amend both clauses.
I am happy to assure the hon. Lady that, at present, there is clearly coterminosity and no policy issue to be raised. Were there to be policy changes, they and any concerns would relate, I would have thought, to earlier clauses. Clause 94 is simply about the financial assistance and, as I have made clear on a number of occasions, it describes what the function of CABE and the extent of its activities have been prior to being made statutory. There is no change in that regard. 
''Vicinity'' is important. CABE, in addition to its work on buildings has also been involved in regeneration of—for instance—seaside towns, beach areas and the sea front. Thus allowing CABE the  power to work in the vicinity of buildings, as well as in the vicinity of spaces referred to, means that it can continue such work. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 94 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clauses 95 and 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 97 - Use of fixed penalty receipts:lower tier authorities

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Matthew Green: I have a couple of brief questions for the Minister. Clause 97(2)(b), says that regulations may include provision
''to pay sums in respect of those amounts to another person (including the appropriate person)'', 
and the appropriate person would obviously be the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly. However, what is the real intention of the paragraph? Is it that the Minister will ensure that a percentage of receipts by lower-tier authorities is carved off and taken back to central Government? That would be my immediate reading of it. The provision is general and talks of paying 
''those amounts to another person (including the appropriate person)'', 
so I wonder who those other persons, aside from the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly, are. 
The second question relates to subsection (2) (d), which is 
''to adopt such accounting arrangements in respect of those amounts as may be specified in the regulations.'' 
My concern there is that, since we would like parish and town councils to be as proactive as possible, high accounting costs—as the Minister will be aware—can disproportionately affect lower-tier authorities, whose budgets are relatively small. It is something they have complained about in the past. 
The Minister, in a previous debate, used an example of a group of quite small parishes clubbing together to run something similar. Clearly, if the accounting procedures are over-onerous and over-expensive it would put them off doing that. I seek assurance that those procedures will be as light touch as possible.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising those points in a clear manner that addresses the practical issues. When he asks who might be referred to in this clause other than the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, the most obvious alternative would be the district authority. The circumstances that I envisage could be those in which a parish or town council might have the capacity to issue fixed penalty notices, yet not have the capacity to take matters to prosecution. They would not have  the legal expertise, and so on. In those circumstances, it would perhaps be sensible for an agreement to be reached—if there were a real issue—between one or perhaps several parishes and the district authority. They might agree that the district authority should undertake some of the work and receive the money from fixed penalties as a result of doing that—in other words, a payment for the enforcement from the income received by the parish.
I agree entirely with what the hon. Gentleman said about accounting arrangements. I underline the fact that the clause does not refer to audit or to specific types of professional fees being required. However, I am sure that he would agree that it is appropriate for there to be arrangements whereby proper accounts—simple but proper accounts—are kept to show how the money is received and how the expenditure is dealt with. We intend that the provisions should be implemented with a light touch—the minimum necessary to provide proper accountability. We do not want to take a heavy-handed approach to the work of parish and town councils. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 97 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 98 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 99 - Abandoned shopping and luggage trolleys

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for the opportunity to have a short debate on the implications of clause 99. I understand that, under the present system of charges, the charges are payable only by persons who claim the return of their trolleys, and that if proceedings are brought against a person for the recovery of such a charge, it is a defence for that person to prove that he was not the owner of the trolley at the time that it was removed.
The summary of the responses that were made at the time of the consultation showed that commercial operators had raised concerns that those powers could result in local authorities failing to work with the changes under clause 99, and failing to work in partnership with the commercial operators. Can the Minister share with the Committee the reason why the charge will be payable to the authority on demand under new section 3A in subsection (3) as opposed to on a voluntary basis? 
I have seen at first hand the damage that these trolleys can do, in particular to ponds in local areas, and the cost to the Environment Agency and other drainage authorities of removing them. Will the  Minister confirm that, under this Bill, the Environment Agency and other drainage authorities such as internal drainage boards, will, for the first time, be able to recover costs where trolleys are blocking waterways? I understand that a request was made that trolleys would be clearly identifiable. Can the Minister say to what extent that is practicable and whether that would be the case for supermarket trolleys alone or also for airport and railway trolleys? Is it perhaps easier for supermarkets to identify them? 
 I understand that there were calls for the powers to be extended to incorporate bread trays and delivery trolleys for mail and newspapers. That was as a result of the responses to the consultation. Can the Minister say why that was not agreed to? 
There is an issue in the clause for retailers, in particular. They are concerned that it may raise a number of practical difficulties. Retailers, both large and small, are likely to be unfairly penalised due to poorly drafted legislation. The clause, as it currently stands, may be extremely difficult to implement. 
I gather that local authorities have had the opportunity to consult the Minister further on that. Is he minded to introduce any changes to the clause at a later stage?

Alun Michael: I start by underlining the importance of the clause. We have focused particularly on abandoned trolleys—the hon. Lady referred to other items that may cause a nuisance in some circumstances—because they cause a particular nuisance, as has been reflected in the views of a number of my hon. Friends who want this provision pursued with some vigour. Abandoned trolleys reduce the visible quality of our streets and public places; they cause a hazard, often to traffic; when dumped in watercourses, they can cause flooding by obstructing the water flow; and they may also cause harm to wildlife. I have seen the impact of all those difficulties in my constituency, as I know many of my hon. Friends have in theirs.
The change is needed because, although local authorities have powers to deal with abandoned shopping trolleys, they often cannot recover the cost from the trolley owner. The clause will enable them to do so, even if the trolley owner does not reclaim the trolleys. The hon. Lady rightly says that some retailers take a responsible interest in protecting their property and not letting it become abandoned and a nuisance to others, but not all retailers are as good as the best and we want to encourage them to be so. 
The change is necessary to encourage local authorities to deal more effectively with the problem of abandoned trolleys. Local authorities may be reluctant to remove them when they are contributing to poor local environmental quality, because they do not know whether they will be able to recover the cost  of doing so. The measure will also encourage retail businesses to take greater responsibility for their property. I believe that it will give an additional push towards greater partnership, rather than undermining partnership. I meet the British Retail Consortium regularly, having for many years been a member of the all-party group on the retail trade, so I am well aware of some of these issues and of the BRC's interest in ensuring that it works effectively with local authorities. We want to encourage that, not make it more difficult. 
I know that the BRC was worried about the charges that local authorities will fix to be paid under schedule 4. I assure the Committee that we will deal with that issue in guidance, with local authorities providing information about the charges to be made. Therefore, I hope that the clause will have the strong support of the whole Committee.

Anne McIntosh: I understand that there was concern about poor take-up under section 99 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which set out the original powers in relation to abandoned shopping and luggage trolleys. What does the Minister estimate will be the take-up of the clause and what is the cost likely to be, as the money will be recovered as a debt?

Alun Michael: We are dealing with large organisations that are not likely to disappear overnight, rather than with individuals, so the collection of debt is unlikely to be an issue. The clause is much more likely to encourage retailers to work with the local authority.
Again, the point of there being an income is that, if the local authority is faced with a company that does not take any notice of the damage that its trolleys are doing to the environment, or perhaps merely with a unit in a chain that is badly managed, it can get a grip on the situation without the costs falling on local council tax payers and the public purse. I think that we can rely on the situation being balanced and proportionate, but, as I said, guidance will be given before commencement. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 100 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 101 - Statutory nuisance: insects

Sue Doughty: I beg to move amendment No. 116, in clause 101, page 74, line 32, leave out ', trade or business' and insert 'or trade'.
At first glance I broadly support the clause. We have all experienced the problems that occur when somebody is composting on a commercial basis and the flies cause a real nuisance to the people who live close by. It is quite hard to get people to deal with that. 
I have a particular aversion to mosquitoes, almost to the point of declaring an interest. My house is in a river valley, which has areas of water on which mosquitoes breed. From time to time, that makes sitting in the garden a misery. It is tempting to say, ''Death to all  mosquitoes'' willy-nilly. Mosquitoes particularly take to me, but I do not particularly take to them. However, Buglife, the Invertebrate Conservation Trust, has expressed considerable concerns. We want to get rid of nuisance insects, not insects per se. That is where we seek guidance. 
It is a matter of what we define as a trade or business. Does a business include farmland and fields? Does it include areas where there would be a normal diversity of wildlife, including insect life? The last thing that I would want is for us, in dealing with nuisance insects, to have to deal lock, stock and barrel with all insects in a particular area. That would be completely counter-productive and would go against what we have all been working for in establishing our wildlife biodiversity. 
It is also a matter of how ''nuisance'' is defined. What constitutes a nuisance from insects, as opposed to the normal situation with insects, particularly at certain times of the year? I will give an example. St. Mark's flies are harmless. For about two weeks in the spring they swarm. Normally, they live in hedgerows. They eat roots and pollinate hawthorn bushes; they are generally benign, but they are bit annoying when they are swarming. They do not hurt people, but they look unsightly. People complain about them and ask for them to be controlled. There are only two ways in which to deal with St. Mark's flies. Either the land can be ploughed up, which does not seem a good idea, or the area can be sprayed with a pesticide. In either case, everything else in the vicinity will be knocked out. If a complaint was made and the local authority enforced it with an abatement notice, the farmer could be compelled to destroy or poison habitats of local wildlife. 
There is also the problem of mosquitoes breeding in standing water. As I said, I would quite happily ring up the council every other evening of the summer and complain about mosquitoes. However, we must think what will happen. Reinstated flood plains—there are more of those as we are learning about water management and how to deal with floods—are there to protect downstream properties from flood damage. Mosquitoes are a by-product of that sort of water management. Will a farmer spray pesticide on the flood plain? If so, it may go into a watercourse. Given all the work that we have been doing to remove and reduce the amount of pesticides in drinking water, we are concerned that there may be a counter-productive situation in which somebody complains about mosquitoes, the water is sprayed and the level of pesticides in water gets worse instead of better.

David Drew: The hon. Lady will no doubt be interested to know that that is exactly what the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is considering. I am intrigued about the wording of the amendment. It effectively takes out the term ''business'' and leaves ''trade''. Can she explain what that means in the context of the Bill?

Sue Doughty: We want to probe whether a farm is a business or a trade. The owner of the land may be the National Trust, for example, which owns a lot of  riverside land. Is that a business or a trade? Who owns the land, and what impact will there be on biodiversity? How do we do the right thing? I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman a little clarification.
Landowners will be under pressure if a neighbour comes along and says, ''You have got mosquitoes. What are you going to do about it? They are giving me hell.'' Most landowners like to get on with their neighbours. Dealing with insects is specialist job, and people might be worried that there will be a knee-jerk reaction in which a landowner just sprays everything that moves. There are many more examples I could give, but I know that we are trying to move along, having lost a lot of time earlier. The Minister has got the gist of the importance of the question, and I look forward to his response.

Eric Forth: Order. Before the Minister replies, I think that this is one of those cases where the amendment and the clause substantially overlap, so I suggest to the Committee that we regard the debate as being on the amendment and the clause stand part.

Anne McIntosh: I will not detain the Minister. I want to ask him about one of the issues on which we have been least heavily lobbied. However, I understand that there was an incident on a bus on which someone carrying a jam jar of insects broke the jar. One or two ladies, with whom I have complete sympathy, became hysterical and the bus had to grind to a complete halt. Clearly, there is an issue here.
 I understand from the consultation of outside bodies that there was a request for the term ''insects'' to be clearly defined to avoid challenges in the courts. Some felt that only the insects that could spread disease should be included and that it would not be reasonable or practicable to include insects that are merely a nuisance. Wasps, which are insects, can have fatal consequences for the people who are allergic to them. A minority felt that dangerous pets should be included in the provisions, but I would not insist that pets should be deemed to be insects. 
I declare an interest. There are a number of beekeepers in the Vale of York, and I hope that the Minister will not seek to extend unfavourably the items listed in the clause in such a way that beekeepers innocently going about their business are affected. The bees are bred to produce honey and should not be deemed a nuisance. Will the Minister give us a definition of ''insects''?

Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Ladies for their questions about the clause. The provision is intended to cover all premises other than domestic ones. The simple answer is that a farm, as a business, would be covered. A bus, which is not premises, would not be covered. The activities that could give rise to insect problems are not likely to be carried out at domestic premises, but that cannot be said of all business premises. Moreover, it may not always be clear whether a site should be classified as industrial or business. That is why I would not welcome the amendment. However, I take the point that it was the peg for a wide discussion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) was assiduous on behalf of her constituents. I became very familiar with the arguments and the details of that case. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) was equally assiduous in raising the issue of the odour arising in Plymouth as a result of the activities taking place on Cattedown wharf. I have described the background to explain the origin of the provisions. 
As far as the reference to farms is concerned, the fears that the hon. Member for Guildford explained to us are unjustified. I can offer her the assurance that she is looking for. Insects could be considered a nuisance under these clauses only as a result of a business activity—in that case a farming activity—which might include slurry spreading but not the natural infestation to which she referred. We will certainly make that distinction and cover those points clearly in the guidance that is necessary for commencement. I hope that with that explanation, members of the Committee will be happy to see the clause stand part of the Bill.

Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for that explanation, but I do not think that he has entirely reassured me.

Alun Michael: The hon. Lady said at one stage that there were other more specific issues that she would have liked to raise if there had been time. I am happy to undertake to write to her in more detail on those issues and respond to any further specific points that she wishes to raise with me.

Sue Doughty: I am grateful to the Minister, and I appreciate that reply. I believe that English Nature has also raised with his Department the point about the potential environmental damage, and again I look forward to some clarity about that. The organisation Buglife would be very interested in making representations to the Minister and his Department. If we are trying to deal with the flies arising from slurry, I would like to know that we are not blocking out a whole area of insect life and impacting on pollination, the food chain and the entire ecosystem.

Alun Michael: I can give the hon. Lady a clear assurance that that is not our intention, and it will be made clear in guidance. The situation that we envisage is a similar to that in Mogden, where nuisance to local  residents has gone on for many years. It is clear that the law needs to be altered to ensure that such cases can be dealt with. Given her comments about her personal affection for mosquitoes, I am sure that she would understand the views of local residents who wanted swift action taken and therefore this type of change to the law.

Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for those constructive comments. I almost feel like declaring a personal interest: I ceased working for Thames Water in 1997, and when I visited Mogden, we did not have the level of nuisance that has since arisen. I hold up my hands and say that, as the position has deteriorated, it is possibly not a good thing that I left. I will be in touch with the Minister through correspondence about the issues raised. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
Question agreed to. 
Clause 101 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 102 - Statutory Nuisance: Lighting

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in clause 102, page 75, line 2, after 'premises', insert
'or streetlights on public roads or public rights of way'.

Eric Forth: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 58, in clause 102, page 75, line 16, at end insert—
'(j) premises or apparatus used for the provision of electronic communication services.'. 
No. 104, in clause 102, page 75, line 16, at end insert— 
'(k) a playing field, playing pitch or other outdoor facility used wholly or mainly for sport.'. 
No. 117, in clause 102, page 75, line 16, after 'prison', insert, 
'; that is necessary to meet statutory requirements relating to national security or public safety, provided that reasonable and practicable steps have been taken to minimise light emissions to the minimum necessary to meet those requirements.'. 
No. 105, in clause 102, page 75, line 37, at end insert— 
'''playing field'' has the meaning given in Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment) Order 1996;''playing pitch'' means a delineated area which, together with any run-off area, is 0.4 hectares or more, and which is used for sport;'. 
No. 106, in clause 102, page 75, line 49, at end insert— 
'''sport'' is designated as any sporting activity which appears on the list maintained by the National Sports Councils of activities recognised by them, as applicable to Schedule 18 to the Finance Act 2002;'.

Anne McIntosh: The amendment relates to concerns that, without adequate security lighting for apparatus ranging from telephone exchange buildings to telephone kiosks, providers such as utility companies, in particular BT's electronic communication network, would be compromised by the service of abatement notices. Companies who own exchange buildings that have been subject to vandalism and arson and are recognised as potential targets for terrorist attacks have real concerns about the issue. In their view, lighting is also essential for the functionality of telephone kiosks at night and for the safety and protection of the individuals who use them.
In moving the amendment, we wish to note that there is a common desire to reduce pollution and promote the use of minimum artificial light as required at night. However, we wish operators such as telecommunication companies to be able to operate in safe conditions and wish such lighting to be deemed necessary. 
Amendment No. 58 relates to similar concerns. It recognises that the Committee would wish to support the integrity and security of telecommunications and that, as the buildings that house the network equipment are the target of arson and vandalism, the companies that own those buildings must be vigilant against attack from terrorists or others who wish no good to their systems. While no one should be subject to vandalism, the consequence of such attacks on operational buildings can be to leave customers  without a service, while, in the case of public payphones, the individual who uses the structure is at risk if it is poorly lit or not lit at all. If the Minister has heard what I have said, it would be helpful if he would be sympathetic to, and accept, the amendment. 
I request that the Minister looks equally sympathetically on amendments Nos. 104 and 105 and that he recognises that there is no exception for football fields or sports facilities. I am sure that the Minister has had discussions with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It will assure him that playing fields, pitches and other sporting facilities are not exempt from being listed as a statutory nuisance under the drafting and that that means that floodlighting, or any lower-level outdoor lighting for football and sports facilities, could, under the clause as drafted, be deemed nuisance lighting by a local authority. That affects thousands of facilities throughout the country.

Alun Michael: I ask the hon. Lady not to misinterpret the clause. It is not individual lighting or lighting on pitches that could be a problem. It is merely that a local authority would be able to treat as a statutory nuisance those particular cases that qualify as a common law nuisance or are prejudicial to health. So I ask her not to suggest that the clause would have an impact on sports facilities—generally, it would not.
Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.] 
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Five o'clock till Tuesday 1 February at five minutes to Nine o'clock.